(The Monsters and Mustard Gas {High Fantasy/World War I} "saga" began in this thread (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=7494).)
OK. I'm about ready to settle on a setting direction, which I hope is the fount from which everything else will flow.
I've got it narrowed down to two. My currents plans are to either choose one and let the other fall or include both versions of the setting in the finished game.
Setting A: The Invasion Scenario
This one goes the Alternate History route. Right before the Great War begins in earnest, weird stuff starts happening. It is an "Awakening" of sorts, but of a much different scale and nature than in something like Shadowrun.
One of the catalyst background events is the capture of two German soldiers who have become inhuman...somewhere between man and goblin. Then, Moscow cuts itself off from the outside world and there are reports of strange things in the tundra. Later, whole platoons and villages begin to change...in small ways at first, but slowly moving from human to something else.
There will be half-forms in this setting, but not from intermixing. They will be stages of transformation from man to a member of the fantasy races (what ever they end up being.) At the half-level, a character is still mostly human. At the full-level, a character has much more inhuman appearance, a hybrid-personality, strange memories, alien skills and abilities and begins to speak in and understand tongues of other worlds.
The once-hostile powers of Europe have to try to unite against hordes of other-worldly invaders who are using the weapons, equipment and bodies of the armies they built to war against one another.
The nutshell concept is that powerful beings from a Fantasy setting and their minions are moving to our world and using humans as a conduit. All this happens against the backdrop of the well-armed powder-keg that is the Europe of the early 1900s.
Advantages: Plenty of real life characters, locations and events to add rich detail. Has solid foundation but an old ended direction. Seems to marry the two concepts in a way I like.
Disadvantages: GMs and Players may be intimidated/turned off by the amount of history involved. Historical developments may overshadow the PCs and their stories.
Setting B: The No Man Lands
In this one, keep the transformations, keep the WWI technology and style...but drop all the history and go for the symbolic.
There is great battlefield that divides the lands of men and the No Man Lands...the lands where fantasy beings dwell. Thousand of miles of trenches and barbwire cover this area. Brave men man the trenches to keep the plague at bay (always at risk of being changed themselves.) The Front is dirty and high tech...but the further in towards the heart of lands of man, the more peaceful, primitive and unspoiled it is.
The same may true of the No Man Lands, if you're brave enough to go there and explore. If you're brave enough to change.
The only men that the non-humans ever see are the ones in the trenches that try to kill them. The only part of the human world they see the dirty, hostile side. The inverse holds true for the men.
Why are there trenches and rifles and machine guns if this is not the Europe of WWI? The same reason that D&D character have swords and armor, even though they are not in Medieval Europe: style.
Advantages: Don't have to know a bunch of history. More iconic and universal. No historical metaplot to overshadow the PCs and stories.
Disadvantages: May seem silly/out of context. Not as logically satisfying. May turn-off those attracted by the historical element.
Setting AB: Both
I was thinking, that since Setting B is pretty much Setting A without the history, I could just include BOTH of them in the game as examples of the two extremes of the concept. That way, a wider audience could draw something useful from the setting.
Would that be bad? Would it spilt the focus of the materials or just confuse people?
Another factor: it would seem to take a lot more work to write for two settings than for one.
That's where I'm currently at.
I'd like to say thanks again to everyone who gave me feedback and encouragement in the original thread. Especially iago who's suggestions sort of set my mind wondering in some interesting directions.
To give a real short response, I'd vote for A. I'm not a history nut, and I am not likely to become one, but going for B seems like a cheat, and is likely to leave the people who are history nuts cold. On the other hand, it's probably a lot of work. But if you're willing to do it, there's so much to be gained from working within the context of the familiar, and a lot of fun speculative history to be had in terms of what social impact the "united against a common foe" gig has on Europe, and on the events that followed the great war. You are also treading on familiar ground, in part, in terms of striking a comparison with that series by Turtledove (I forget the name) that hypothesized a World War II derailed by an alien invasion. This is not a bad thing, since it'll give folks grounding and a body of similar ideas.
Personally, I'm still more in favor of WWI, no external invasion, and the whole 'technology unleashing the beast within' sort of idea -- but then I would be, since that was my idea. ;)
Hello,
Orcs! With machine guns! Going over the top!
That's what this is about: two questions that immediately arise. They are utterly opposed to one another. By choosing to answer one, you immediately diminish the other to nothingness or to, at most, pure support for the first.
1. Then what?
2. But whyyyy?
Choose which one is more important to you, and then answer it.
Best,
Ron
I think one problem with this setting isn't so much Why, as How? WW2 isn't exactly well know as being a great setting for roleplaying. If anything, it seems more suitable to Games Workshop style mass battles, and it's certainyl no coincidence that some of the armoured vehicles in WH 20,000 look a lot like WW2 british tanks.
Might I suggest going a more post-apocalypse route? Whichever settign you choose, the war has been grinding on not for 4 years, but for 40 years. Almost the entire continent is a wasteland, and vast poison gass clouds have made travell to some regions impossible for years. A whole generation has grown up for nothing but war. This was the war to end all wars, because from now on there will be nothing but war, forever.
Or will there? Whether you're playing in europe or some fantasy world, the situation is basicaly the same. Finaly the war is petering out, simply because there just aren't enough people and weapons left to fight it. Communications have been patchy at best for the last few years, but now they're effectively stopped. What's going on at HQ? Why are so many of the trenches deserted? Even the most loyal, die-hard troops are beginning to think, if the home you've been fighting for for so long even still exists, maybe it's time to try and find it?
Simon Hibbs
Quotesimon_hibbs
I think one problem with this setting isn't so much Why, as How? WW2 isn't exactly well know as being a great setting for roleplaying. If anything, it seems more suitable to Games Workshop style mass battles, and it's certainyl no coincidence that some of the armoured vehicles in WH 20,000 look a lot like WW2 british tanks.
Might I suggest going a more post-apocalypse route?
The setting's actually WWI, but the same thing you said about a WWII setting could be said about it. That is one of my concerns: making a setting that players can find interesting things to do in. They are whole point of the exercise, after all.
I thought of the post-apocalypse route, but I'm melding two genres already. I really like some of the things you could do with an idea like that, though. There will be some elements like the ones you mentioned, because world that is being changed into something else. People will have to adapt. Some people will have to adapt to not being human anymore. That's sort of post-apoc in itself.
QuoteRon Edwards:
Orcs! With machine guns! Going over the top!
That's what this is about: two questions that immediately arise. They are utterly opposed to one another. By choosing to answer one, you immediately diminish the other to nothingness or to, at most, pure support for the first.
1. Then what?
2. But whyyyy?
I'm not a game theorist, but I'm guessing 1 is the Narrativist answer and 2 is the Simulationist?
My main concern is "Then what," but I do enjoy the "whyyyy." I have found that my main need for the "whyyyy" is to help me immerse myself more in the story.
The story's the thing. If there are such things, I think I'm a Narrativist with side order of Simulationist.
I guess this game will be, too. It's hard for me to escape the "whyyyy" when you're dealing with alternate history, unless I toss it out the window (as in Setting B.) But, the main point of the work is let players have their characters face down orcs running over the edge of trench, bayonet at the ready.
Any more clues or hints would be helpful.
I have half a story in my head that involves Malcolm (from the isles) and Gustav (of slavic origin) hunkered down in a trench with their rune-carved rifles and gas masks in hand. Green Gus, as they've taken to calling the changed ones, are doing likewise on the other side of the battlefield. At night it's easy to imagine you're catching sight of their red eyes through the smoke, and it's enough to get some of the lads nervous, shooting out of turn... which of course, armed as they are, is its own problem. The rune magics mean we've got a fighting chance here, holding the line between the advancing Green army and the free peoples of Europe, but it also takes us one step closer to joining up with Gus and his pals every time we use it...
QuoteIago:
I have half a story in my head that involves Malcolm (from the isles) and Gustav (of slavic origin) hunkered down in a trench with their rune-carved rifles and gas masks in hand.
I think you've got the vision. I think players can do things in this setting.
I have about 50 dozen ideas from mechanics to magic to lingo floating in my head.
Quesiton is: do I just start writing? Do I get started on the system? Do I hammer out the setting? Do I immerse myself in WWI history?
I don't want to clog up the forums further until I've got something of substance to show.
Any ideas on how to jump in?
Quote from: AgentFreshAny ideas on how to jump in?
Give yourself your own personal 24-hour RPG challenge. Try to design this as a complete game (it will necessarily end up light on the details, but that's for later) in a single 24-hour period. (That's how Pace (see my sig) came about.)
You may fail, you may succeed, but if you spend those 24 hours in a mindset of "this has to be playable in under a day", you'll find yourself covering (if threadbarely) all the bases. It'll be a skeleton that you can go back to afterwards to hang the meat on.
QuoteIago:
Give yourself your own personal 24-hour RPG challenge.
Eeek.
OK...I'll give it a shot. Gonna be REALLY, REALLY lacking in historical detail, though.
Quote from: AgentFreshOK...I'll give it a shot. Gonna be REALLY, REALLY lacking in historical detail, though.
Seems to answer your question about what to work on first, then (not the historical detail). :)
In fact, you can get away, in a 24 hour version of the game, with saying "familiarity with the history of WWI is recommended."
You know, I just can't shake the idea that iago has. It exactly mirrors my sentiments about the setting. The grimy soldiers sitting in a trench with magical rifles ready to attack those that have been changed, defending their homes, but in the act of defending themselves, they run the risk of slowly becoming like their attackers. And I would most certainly go with setting A, but structure it so that although big things have happened, the PCs have the chance to become just as big or bigger.
And again, I must repeat something iago said. Make an extremely basic outline in a short amount of time, and then start adding the teeth. Don't go into too much detail about the setting (so long as you have a very strong idea of what you want, and how to write the rules to fit the setting), and just write the rules. Of course, you may not be able to write the rules without the setting, or vice versa, so disregard anything that I say if it doesn't work.
Hope it helps,
Kirk
Honestly, write the rules first, as much as possible, before you go into detail on setting history. With any sort of supernatural or magic stuff, this is (imho) extremely important. Once you have some notes on how magic *will* work in the game system, you'll be able to make rational choices on how it affects the setting in question.
You already have a good idea (magic in WWI) and you likely have some visions/ideas in your head on certain effects you want the magic to achieve. My suggestion: hack on the rules for a bit, to make sure those effects occur, and then extrapolate other magical effects there. If you don't like what you see, go back to the rules. If you're willing to go with the flow, you can use those very extrapolations in the history.
People understand "real world" physics well enough that your system emulating them shouldn't be a problem. But for "unreal" physics, system is often the only touchpoint the players will have vis-a-vis "how things work." That makes these things very important when they have as large an impact on the setting as you're wanting.
Of course, this is just MNSHO, so YMMV
Try as I might, I can't see the attraction of the "WW2 with people changing into orcs and elves" setting. I have tried, but there are just too many questions that keep popping up in my head.
Why are they changing into orcs and elves? If it's an invasion into our world, I can see that it's an arbitrary world invading ours, but if they're shapechanging how does that happen? Are they orcs, or Germans that look like orcs, or what? Do you expect many Germans to understand and appreciate the finer points of this game?
Do they transform physicaly and menatly, but remain the same person (same memories, culture, language, name, etc), or do they become a completely new person?
How do they maintain organisational integrity? Did they all change in one night, with all the Germans becoming Orcs, and all the French (or whoever) turning into Elves, or wa sit gradual? How did they maintain discipline during such a huge change?
Where did the knowledge of magic come from? If it just popped into people's heads, how did they come to learn how to use it effectively? It would take time to integrate a new 'technology' like that into a military organisation.
I get the atmosphere and game mood you're trying to create, but I think you can get that without the historical setting which IMHO just complicates a great concept.
Simon Hibbs
Funny, AF. Not that it matters, but you got the "what" and "why" backwards. OTOH, it's sort of a subjective thing (heck, maybe it's me that's got it backwards). Which is why Ron didn't ask you using jargon. Basically, the jargon part doesn't matter, what matters is which vision you have. Do you see some issue, a reason "why" the characters are going over the wall, or do you just see more action ("what")?
Once you have a hold of these things, then make the rules create that which you envision. That simple.
Mike
I've been "in the lab" with this idea. I didn't get close to surviving the 24-Hour challenge, but attempting it got me to putting my ducks in a row and seeing what's important.
Mike Holmes wroteQuoteFunny, AF. Not that it matters, but you got the "what" and "why" backwards. OTOH, it's sort of a subjective thing (heck, maybe it's me that's got it backwards). Which is why Ron didn't ask you using jargon. Basically, the jargon part doesn't matter, what matters is which vision you have. Do you see some issue, a reason "why" the characters are going over the wall, or do you just see more action ("what")?
Aaaah. Now I get it. What=action, why=motivation. Cool. Yeah, I said it vice-versa but I meant the same thing. My what=forward motion of character's involvement with the setting and my why=the logical, historical, cultural reasons for the setting being as it is.
So, my answer to questioned the way you frame it is: I'm more interested in the internal why than just stringing actions together.
...
simon_hibbs wroteQuoteTry as I might, I can't see the attraction of the "WW2 with people changing into orcs and elves" setting. I have tried, but there are just too many questions that keep popping up in my head.
In the interest of accuracy, it's World War I, 1914-1918 (not that clearing that up would make someone turned-off by the idea any more interested.)
And YOU'RE ASKING SOME GOOD QUESTIONS. A lot of these are questions I've considered or am pondering. I plan to answer most of them in setting.
Maybe that'll be hook for you to get interested: seeing how it all comes together? :)
...
Lxndr (who's mileage is known to vary) and
Dumirik both WISELY advised me to keep my outline material basic and focus on the rules to begin with.
I made this discovery on my own as I sat down to write over the weekend. I set out to write on the setting, but when I looked at what the most important thing to get out of the way as far as making a playable game, I had to jump right into system design.
I've worked out a little system for mechanics and character creation, but it's nothing ground breaking. I call it POV System for Plain Ol' Vanilla (or Point of View if you'd rather.) As it stands now, it's very derivative. I'll probably scrap/simplify/augment it a few times before I settle.
I think looking at the setting specific issues (magic system, humans changing into non-humans, the changing world) in regards to the rules is also a wise suggestion. That'll answer some important questons and make sure that the system supports the kind of stories I'd like to see people be able to tell.
I'm not the world's best rules writer. I want a simple, functional, easy to use system with just enough crunch as to not be distracting. I want it to be character and story driven.
Again, I want to thank everyone for the good advice and encouragement. Maybe I'll have some play-testable matter available for perusal soon.
Quote from: AgentFreshI think looking at the setting specific issues (magic system, humans changing into non-humans, the changing world) in regards to the rules is also a wise suggestion. That'll answer some important questons and make sure that the system supports the kind of stories I'd like to see people be able to tell.
The way I've been envisioning this stuff, involves some sort of... (hey!) Humanity attribute, that people run the risk of reducing when they use magic or magical devices (or just plain old 20th-century war technology to a lesser degree). I might also suggest the ability to "sell off" some of that Humanity in order to turn failures into successes or successes into bigger successes. And if your focus ends up being on the inner worlds of the characters, I don't think the magic system in and of itself needs to be much (other than some general guidelines of what magic can and can't do -- given my druthers, I'd say it does the same things early 20th century battle technology can do, only "more so"). Ultimately, at least in the mechanical scenario I'm suggesting, it's main purpose is as a tool of temptation, one that can win the day but at the cost of your soul.
I'll leave it to people more familiar with Sorceror than I am, to judge whether or not this notion fits with that game or not. :)
iago: From what I can see, I think our druthers are similar. I think you'll like it, if and when it's finished.
Quote from: AgentFresh
In the interest of accuracy, it's World War I, 1914-1918 (not that clearing that up would make someone turned-off by the idea any more interested.)
Sorry, I know it's WW1, but I'm working on a WW2 scenario at the moment and my fingers haven't cought up with my brain yet.
Simon Hibbs
I think option B would be better, as all you need are visuals (rats, fog, craters, barbed wire etc.) and somehow the lack of justification conveys better the absurdity of trench warfare - after all, did the grunts worry about the "why" ?
Quote from: AgentFresh
Quesiton is: do I just start writing? Do I get started on the system? Do I hammer out the setting? Do I immerse myself in WWI history?
I don't want to clog up the forums further until I've got something of substance to show.
Any ideas on how to jump in?
I have always had the most success in writing the setting first and using that work to determine the 'pivots' (my term) that you want to use for mechanics to reinforce or illuminate.
fr'instance: You write a long piece about how the men fall ill to the 'taint' and you may want a 'humanity' mechanic for the player=characters to illustrate this. So you know that humanity will be addressed mechanically, you just have to discover, or find out, how.
simon_hibbs wrote: QuoteSorry, I know it's WW1, but I'm working on a WW2 scenario at the moment and my fingers haven't cought up with my brain yet.
Don't worry about it. My wires often get crossed...that's how I came up with the idea for this setting, in fact.
...
Thierry Michel wrote:QuoteI think option B would be better, as all you need are visuals (rats, fog, craters, barbed wire etc.) and somehow the lack of justification conveys better the absurdity of trench warfare - after all, did the grunts worry about the "why" ?
Good points...which is why I was torn. If the only option Players had was to play grunts, I might be more likely to go this route. I want to give the Players an interesting setting that could acomodate many roles and goals.
Also, like I said, anyone who wants to run it under Option B, can just take the trappings and disregard the history.
Btw, I think France is going to be the focal point of my setting. Maybe you can give me tips when I get to that part?
...
ross_winn wrote: QuoteI have always had the most success in writing the setting first and using that work to determine the 'pivots' (my term) that you want to use for mechanics to reinforce or illuminate.
Oddly enough, following this path has actually led me to tangling with the rules first. This may be because it's been a while since I've sat down and worked out fresh mechanics. It may also be because this is my weakest point.
Maybe it's like finishing your dinner so you can have ice cream?
I do want the rules and setting work together like a .30 Caliber Machine gun and an ammo belt. I pretty much know what I want to get out of the setting. I've yet to fully figure out how to make the rules encourage that.
...
Thanks for the comments as always. Hope to have something to show you for your troubles soon.
I stole the tagline from Emily, and I do so with all due respect...
do be do be dooo...
If the game is primarily centered in a North American audience I generally think this is a very risky proposition. Aside from the obvious anti-french sentiments reverberating in North America recently. The only other game that uses France as its central power tanked. Largely because there was no emotional relationship with the audience to the setting. That was Traveller: 2300.
In a perfect world it wouldn't matter, but hey, this isn't.
ross_winn wrote:QuoteIf the game is primarily centered in a North American audience I generally think this is a very risky proposition. Aside from the obvious anti-french sentiments reverberating in North America recently. The only other game that uses France as its central power tanked. Largely because there was no emotional relationship with the audience to the setting. That was Traveller: 2300.
France is the location, not the major power. Mostly you'll see bits of France being blown up and such. Other locations will be developed, but I think the HQ of the protagonist force will be in France, but that doesn't mean the protagonists are French. There will be plenty of hooks for North Americans like myself.
Anyway, I'm hoping that the emotional connection won't be about where a human is from, but that they are a human who's in a changing world. Or a human who's becoming something other than human. I think any contemporary human can relate to that.
It'd be neat if the audience was the world, but I don't know much about the world gaming culture.
Thanks for the heads up, though.
Quote from: AgentFresh
Btw, I think France is going to be the focal point of my setting. Maybe you can give me tips when I get to that part?
Sure, I even have second-hand knowledge (my grandfather lost fingers at Verdun and lived very very old to tell me about it).
NEXT PHASE:
I have done a lot of disecting and theorizing and absorbing of good feedback. I have done some writing, testing and plan making.
Now, I'm gonna let it digest.
I'm gonna get back to playing and try to GM a game of something else to get my perspective on things. To remember what I like about other RPGs and what I think is broken.
THANKS AGAIN.
This should be my last word on this game until I have a draft ready for your consideration.